Allowed

Sukhmander Singh v. Virpal Kaur &Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2011CR/6798/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition filed under Article 227, the High Court allowed the plea to set aside the lower court's order striking off the petitioner's defence due to non-filing of a written statement. Granting one last opportunity to file was deemed just considering cited circumstances, subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 18.10.2011 set aside; petitioner granted one last opportunity to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 costs.

Sukhmander Singh Vs Virpal Kaur… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.6798/2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.6798/2011 Date of decision: 08.11.2011.

¶5

Sukhmander Singh

¶6

....................Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Veerpal Kaur & Ors.

¶9

.....................Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

¶11

Present: Mr.A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

¶13

Petitioner/defendant has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2011(P-1) whereby his defence, for not filling the written statement, has been struck off by the trial Court.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for grant of decree of maintenance against the petitioner/defendant under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and for creating a charge for the recovery of maintenance allowance from the land of the petitioner as also seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner. In the said suit

¶15

CR No.6798/2011 2

¶16

petitioner/defendant appeared through his Counsel on 08.06.2011 and sought time to file reply. Again on 20.09.2011 on the request of Counsel for the petitioner/defendant the case was adjourned to 18.10.2011 for filing written statement, however, due to failure on the part of the Counsel for the petitioner/defendant the impugned order came to be passed.

¶17

It is further submitted that on 18.10.2011 brother of one Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate had passed away and on account of this reason Bar Association, Gidderbaha passed a resolution dated 18.10.2011(copy of resolution produced in Court which is taken on record) to abstain from work. In these circumstances the Counsel for the petitioner had asked one of his colleagues to make a request for adjournment on his behalf before the Court as he himself had left for paying condolence to his colleague but instead of granting adjournment for filing written statement the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order .

¶18

It is thus contended that non filling of the written statement on 18.10.2011 was under exceptional circumstances and in no event was intentional or deliberate. It is thus prayed that keeping in view the aforesaid reason and the nature of the suit, petitioner/defendant be granted one last opportunity to file his written statement subject to costs as deemed appropriate.

¶19

After hearing the learned Counsel, in my opinion, the prayer made is just, reasonable and liable to be accepted. Due to failure of the

¶20

CR No.6798/2011 3

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner/defendant to file written statement on 18.10.2011 for the reasons explained above, the interest of petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer. Accordingly present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 18.10.2011 is set aside and the petitioner/defendant is granted one last opportunity to file written statement. This shall however be subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs by way of demand draft in favour of respondent-wife Virpal Kaur. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for filing the written statement.

¶22

This order is being passed without issuing notice to the plaintiffs/respondents to avoid further delay and save them from litigation expenses. Moreover, they have been adequately compensated by way of costs.

¶23

Disposed of in above terms.

¶24

08.11.2011 joshi

¶25

(Jaswant Singh) Ju dge

Sukhmander Singh v. Virpal Kaur &Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhmander Singh v. Virpal Kaur &Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh Vs Bank of India and Ors.

Bachan Kaur Vs Prabh Simran Singh Gill and Ors.

Satbir and Ors. Vs Dano and Ors.

Gurmej Singh Vs Sucha Singh

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs M/S Aar Kay Construction Company

Asini @ Asii Vs Rajender Singh and Others